This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-123
entitled 'International Military Education and Training: Agencies
Should Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve Evaluations' which
was released on October 27, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office: GAO:
Report to Congressional Committees:
October 2011:
International Military Education and Training:
Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve
Evaluations:
International Military Training:
GAO-12-123:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-12-123, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since 1976, the International Military Education and Training (IMET)
program has provided education and training to foreign military
personnel. The programís objectives include professionalizing military
forces and increasing respect for democratic values and human rights.
In 2010, Congress appropriated $108 million in IMET funding for more
than 120 countries. The Department of State (State) and the Department
of Defense (DOD) share responsibility for IMET. In response to a
mandate in the conference report accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2010, this report assesses (1) changes in the
program from fiscal years 2000 to 2010, by funding levels, students
trained, and recipient countries; (2) the programís provision of and
emphasis on human rights training for its students; and (3) the extent
to which State and DOD monitor IMET graduates and evaluate program
effectiveness. GAO reviewed and analyzed agency funding, planning, and
performance management documents, and interviewed U.S. officials in
Washington, D.C., and overseas.
What GAO Found:
Although IMET funding has increased by more than 70 percent since
fiscal year 2000, the number of students trained has decreased by
nearly 14 percent. Over the last 10 years, countries in the Europe and
Eurasia region have continued to receive the largest portion of IMET
funding, receiving $30 million in 2010. However, all regions have
received increased IMET funding since fiscal year 2000, with the levels
of funding to the Near East and South and Central Asia regions more
than doubling from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2010. Professional
military education represents the largest single use of IMET fundsó
nearly 50 percent in fiscal year 2010. Other major types of training
funded by IMET include English language training and technical
training, which represented 13 and 11 percent, respectively, of fiscal
year 2010 IMET program costs.
Training to build respect for internationally recognized human rights
standards is provided to IMET students through various in-class and
field-based courses, but human rights training was generally not
identified as a priority in the IMET country training plans GAO
reviewed. IMET students primarily receive human rights training through
human rights courses that focus on promoting democratic values, and
through a voluntary program that sends them on visits to democratically
oriented institutions. However, human rights and related concepts were
identified as key objectives in only 11 of the 29 country training
plans GAO reviewed for IMET participant countries that received low
rankings for political and civil freedoms by Freedom House, an
independent nongovernmental organization. Furthermore, 7 of the 12
training managers GAO interviewed from countries that received low to
moderate rankings for political and civil freedoms said that human
rights was not a priority compared to other IMET objectives.
State and DODís ability to assess IMETís effectiveness is limited by
several weaknesses in program monitoring and evaluation. First, State
and DOD have not established a performance plan for IMET that explains
how the program is expected to achieve its goals and how progress can
be assessed through performance measures and targets. Second, State and
DOD have limited information on most IMET graduates, due to weaknesses
in efforts to monitor these graduatesí careers after training. DOD has
collected updated career information on only 1 percent of IMET
graduates. Training managers identified limited resources and lack of
host country cooperation as among the key challenges to monitoring IMET
graduates. Third, the agenciesí current evaluation efforts include few
of the evaluation elements commonly accepted as appropriate for
measuring progress of training programs, and do not objectively measure
how IMET contributes to long-term, desired program outcomes. The
agencies could incorporate existing evaluation practices, including
those of other State and DOD entities, or suggestions from training
managers overseas to improve IMET monitoring and evaluation efforts.
IMET training managers have offered suggestions for improving
monitoring efforts, such as by clarifying DODís monitoring guidance and
strengthening DODís IMET data systems. Training managers also offered
ideas to improve program evaluations, such as surveying U.S. military
groups to assess participant nationsí proficiency in key areas,
assessing career progress of IMET graduates against non-IMET graduates
in specific countries, and testing students before and after training
to measure changes in knowledge or attitudes.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretaries of State and Defense (1) ensure
human rights training is a priority in IMET recipient countries with
known human rights concerns, and (2) take initial steps to begin
developing a system to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET program,
including adopting existing evaluation practices used by other State
and DOD agencies and soliciting IMET training managers for suggestions
on improving monitoring and evaluation efforts. State and DOD both
concurred with our recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao/gov/products/GAO-12-123. For more
information, contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr. at (202) 512-7331 or
johnsoncm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
IMET Funding Appropriated and the Number of Students Trained Have
Changed over the Past 10 Fiscal Years:
IMET Offers Human Rights Training but Does not Emphasize it in Many
Countries of Concern:
Program Monitoring and Evaluation Weaknesses Limit Agencies' Efforts to
Assess IMET Effectiveness:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Freedom House Rankings for Fiscal Year 2010 IMET Recipient
Countries:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Types of Human Rights-Related Objectives Identified as
Priorities for 29 Countries Ranked as Not Free:
Table 2: IMET Recipient Countries by Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Level and
2011 Freedom House Ranking:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Students Trained Compared to IMET Funding
Appropriated, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2010:
Figure 2: IMET Funding Appropriated, by Region, for Fiscal Years 2000
and 2010:
Figure 3: Top 15 Funded IMET Recipient Countries, Fiscal Year 2010:
Figure 4: IMET Training Breakdown by Program Cost, Fiscal Year 2010:
Figure 5: Survey Responses on Challenges to Monitoring IMET Graduates:
Figure 6: Extent to Which State and DOD Collect Performance Data at
Evaluation Levels:
Abbreviations:
BSRP: Bureau Strategic Resource Plan:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DSCA: Defense Security Cooperation Agency:
E-IMET: Expanded-IMET:
IMET: International Military Education and Training:
PME: professional military education:
SCO: Security Cooperation Office:
State: Department of State:
[End of section]
October 27, 2011:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Lindsey Graham:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Kay Granger:
Chairman:
The Honorable Nita Lowey:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Since 1976, the International Military Education and Training (IMET)
program has provided education and training to foreign military
personnel.[Footnote 1] The program's objectives include strengthening
recipient nations' defense capabilities, professionalizing military
forces, and increasing foreign militaries' respect for democratic
values and human rights. In 2010, Congress appropriated $108 million in
IMET funding for more than 120 countries. The Department of State
(State) and the Department of Defense (DOD) share responsibility for
IMET program policy making and management. In 1990, we found that the
agencies had no system for evaluating IMET program impact or guidelines
for monitoring the use of IMET graduates. We recommended that State and
DOD jointly develop a system to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET
program.[Footnote 2]
The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2010 directed us to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET program
in building professionalism and respect for human rights within foreign
military forces.[Footnote 3] This report assesses (1) changes in the
program from fiscal years 2000 to 2010, by funding levels, number of
students trained, and recipient countries, by region; (2) the program's
provision of and emphasis on human rights training for its students;
and (3) the extent to which State and DOD monitor IMET graduates and
evaluate program effectiveness.
To address these objectives, we reviewed U.S. laws related to the IMET
program. We interviewed officials from multiple State bureaus and DOD
entities, including the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA),
geographic combatant commands, and several military departments and
U.S. military schools. To address the first objective, we analyzed
State and DSCA documents related to IMET funding allocations and number
of students trained by training type and geographic region. We used
fiscal year 2000 as our starting point because, according to DSCA,
their data were unreliable prior to that year. To address the second
objective, we analyzed selected training plans from IMET participant
countries and curriculum documents from several DOD schools. To address
the third objective, we assessed State and DOD IMET performance
management documents; reviewed our prior reports on recommended
training evaluation practices; interviewed IMET training managers from
20 countries, choosing a selection of higher-funded countries with a
range of host country political rights and civil liberties conditions;
and surveyed all 123 IMET training managers worldwide, receiving 70
completed survey responses.[Footnote 4]
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through October 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. (See app. I for a complete
discussion of our scope and methodology.)
Background:
The IMET program was established in 1976 to provide military education
and training to foreign security forces. The purpose of the program is
to:
* encourage effective and mutually beneficial relations and increased
understanding between the United States and foreign countries in
furtherance of the goals of international peace and security;
* improve the ability of participating foreign countries to utilize
their resources, including defense articles and defense services
obtained by them from the United States, with maximum effectiveness,
thereby contributing to greater self-reliance; and:
* increase the awareness of foreign nationals participating in such
activities of basic issues involving internationally recognized human
rights.[Footnote 5]
In 1990, Congress expanded the objectives of the IMET program to focus
on fostering greater understanding of and respect for civilian control
of the military, contributing to responsible defense resource
management, and improving military justice systems and procedures in
accordance with internationally recognized human rights. Congress also
authorized civilians working in nondefense ministries, legislators, and
nongovernmental groups to participate in courses that were developed to
address the expanded IMET program objectives. State and DOD refer to
the expanded IMET objectives as Expanded-IMET (E-IMET).
State and DOD share responsibility for IMET. State, in addition to
determining each country's eligibility for security assistance programs
as well as the scope of security assistance and funding level for each
country, also identifies the annual IMET goals and objectives for each
country through the Congressional Budget Justification. DOD, through
DSCA, is responsible for developing the administrative policy and
administering program guidance and direction to the military
departments and their training field activities.[Footnote 6] The IMET
program trains participants at more than 180 U.S. military schools and
overseas, according to DSCA. IMET-funded training courses can range
from approximately 5 weeks to more than 10 months.[Footnote 7]
Training managers in U.S. Security Cooperation Offices (SCO) overseas
implement IMET, with support and oversight from DOD's geographic
combatant commands. SCOs help IMET recipient countries identify, plan,
and program training that meets U.S. and host nation objectives. SCO
training managers work with host nation counterparts to identify
qualified training candidates and monitor IMET participants after
graduation.[Footnote 8]
IMET Funding Appropriated and the Number of Students Trained Have
Changed over the Past 10 Fiscal Years:
While IMET funding appropriated has increased by more than 70 percent
since fiscal year 2000, the number of students trained has declined by
nearly 14 percent. Countries in the Europe and Eurasia region received
the largest portion of IMET funding in fiscal years 2000 and 2010,
though all regions have received increased IMET funding since fiscal
year 2000. Professional military education represented the largest
single use of IMET funds in fiscal year 2010.
Despite Increase in IMET Funding, Number of Students Trained Has
Declined:
From fiscal years 2000 to 2010, funding appropriated for the IMET
program rose from approximately $62 million[Footnote 9] to $108
million. While IMET funding has generally increased in that 10-year
period, the number of students trained declined from approximately
8,200 to nearly 7,100 (see fig. 1). Moreover, this total dropped by 40
percent between fiscal years 2004 and 2010. Furthermore, between fiscal
years 2000 and 2010, administrative costs for the IMET program
increased from $765,000 to more than $5 million. The IMET funding per
student rose from nearly $6,100 per student in fiscal year 2000 to
approximately $15,000 per student in fiscal year 2010.
Figure 1: Number of Students Trained Compared to IMET Funding
Appropriated, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Fiscal Year: 2000;
Appropriations [A]: 62.31;
Students trained: 8216.
Fiscal Year: 2001;
Appropriations [A]: 70.58;
Students trained: 8386.
Fiscal Year: 2002;
Appropriations [A]: 84.17;
10417.
Fiscal Year: 2003;
Appropriations [A]: 93.61;
Students trained: 10736.
Fiscal Year: 2004;
Appropriations [A]: 104.68;
Students trained: 11832.
Fiscal Year: 2005;
Appropriations [A]: 98.99;
Students trained: 8622.
Fiscal Year: 2006;
Appropriations [A]: 92.35;
Students trained: 7998.
Fiscal Year: 2007;
Appropriations [A]: 89.64;
Students trained: 6845.
Fiscal Year: 2008;
Appropriations [A]: 86.92;
Students trained: 6015.
Fiscal Year: 2009;
Appropriations [A]: 93.65;
Students trained: 6321.
Fiscal Year: 2010;
Appropriations [A]: 108;
Students trained: 7086.
Source: State Congressional Budget Justifications.
[A] The appropriations shown in this figure have been converted to 2010
dollars.
[End of figure]
DOD officials attributed the decline in the number of students trained
to several factors. For example, according to a DOD official, after
2004, per diem costs for foreign military students were adjusted to
match the per diems of U.S. students, resulting in higher overall per
student training costs. In addition, a DOD official said international
student housing has become costlier due in part to reduced availability
of low-cost military base housing. A DOD official also noted another
cause of the higher overall per student training cost was increased
tuition rates because of increased instructor cost. This official
stated this was primarily because military instructors are in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and therefore more resident DOD courses are
taught by government civilians or contractors.
Europe and Eurasia Continue to Receive the Largest Share of IMET
Funding:
Countries in the Europe and Eurasia region received the largest portion
of IMET funding in fiscal years 2000 and 2010, receiving approximately
$22 million[Footnote 10] in fiscal year 2000 and more than $30 million
in 2010 (see fig. 2). However, all regions have received increased IMET
funding since 2000, with the levels of funding to the Near East and
South and Central Asia regions more than doubling from fiscal year 2000
to fiscal year 2010.
Figure 2: IMET Funding Appropriated, by Region, for Fiscal Years 2000
and 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: bar graph]
Europe and Eurasia;
Fiscal Year 2000: 22.08;
Fiscal Year 2010: 30.2.
Western Hemisphere;
Fiscal Year 2000: 12.37;
Fiscal Year 2010: 16.4.
Africa;
Fiscal Year 2000: 9.44;
Fiscal Year 2010: 15.2.
Near East;
Fiscal Year 2000: 7.21;
Fiscal Year 2010: 18.593.
East Asia|and Pacific;
Fiscal Year 2000: 6.2;
Fiscal Year 2010: 8.93.
South and|Central Asia;
Fiscal Year 2000: 4.05;
Fiscal Year 2010: 13.48.
Source: GAO analysis of State Congressional Budget Justification.
Note: Fiscal year 2000 appropriations are shown in 2010 dollars for
comparison over time. This figure does not include administrative
costs, which were $765,000 in fiscal year 2000 and $5.2 million in
fiscal year 2010.
[End of figure]
In fiscal year 2000, total IMET funding provided to 109 countries
ranged from nearly $28,000 to nearly $2.2 million,[Footnote 11] while
in fiscal year 2010 it ranged from $7,000 to $5 million for 125
countries. The top 15 IMET countries by funding level for fiscal year
2010 accounted for almost 35 percent of the total program allocation
(see fig. 3). Appendix II includes a list of funding levels for all
IMET recipient countries in fiscal year 2010.
Figure 3: Top 15 Funded IMET Recipient Countries, Fiscal Year 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: world map and data]
Top 15 IMET countries, by funding, FY 2010.
IMET recipient countries, FY 2010.
Dollars in millions.
East Asia and Pacific:
Philippines: $1.85;
Indonesia: $1.82.
Europe and Eurasia:
Turkey: $5.00;
Poland: $2.20;
Czech Republic: $1.90;
Ukraine: $1.90;
Georgia: $1.81;
Romania $1.76.
Near East:
Jordan: $3.80;
Lebanon: $2.50;
Iraq: $2.00;
Tunisia: $1.95;
Egypt: $1.90;
Morocco: $1.80.
South and Central Asia:
Pakistan: $5.00.
Source: GAO analysis of State Congressional Budget Justifications, Map
Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Professional Military Education Accounts for Nearly Half of IMET
Funding:
Professional military education (PME) accounted for nearly $50 million
of IMET program costs in fiscal year 2010 (see fig. 4). PME includes
basic and advanced levels of training--in areas such as finance,
intelligence, and logistics--intended to prepare military officers for
leadership. According to DSCA, PME is generally longer and costlier
than other IMET training types; despite representing nearly half of
program costs, it accounted for about a quarter of IMET students (1,895
students) in fiscal year 2010.
Figure 4: IMET Training Breakdown by Program Cost, Fiscal Year 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie graph]
Professional military education: 49%: $48,845,543;
Management-related training: 10%: $9,639,687;
Postgraduate/degree training: 4%: $4,161,477;
English language training: 13% $12,811,188;
Technical training: 11%: $10,586,877;
General support: 1%: $933,688;
Mobile training: 5%: $5,333,412;
Other: 7% $7,038,180.
Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD data.
[End of figure]
In fiscal year 2010, English language training comprised nearly $13
million, or 13 percent, of program costs, and was attended by 453 IMET
students. This training is for students who must gain English language
proficiency in order to attend other IMET-funded courses. Technical
training--in areas such as maintenance and operations--comprised nearly
$11 million, or 11 percent, and 830 students attended this training.
Other types of IMET-funded training for fiscal year 2010 include:
* management-related training for officers and enlisted technicians and
supervisors in management of defense organizations and defense-related
areas such as information technology, logistics, engineering, and
others (357 students);
* postgraduate/degree training to obtain master's degrees at the Naval
Postgraduate School or the Air Force Institute of Technology (53
students); and:
* mobile training courses taught by DOD military, civilian, and
contractor personnel in the recipient country that can address subjects
such as military justice, peacekeeping operations, and rules of
engagement and the use of force (5,586 students).[Footnote 12]
IMET-funded training varies by region and nation to meet the country's
needs as determined by State, DOD, and recipient nations. For example,
in fiscal year 2010, 29 percent of Iraq's IMET funding supported
language training and 13 percent supported PME. Comparable percentages
for Pakistan in 2010 were 1 percent and 32 percent, respectively. In
another example, mobile training courses constituted 52 percent of IMET
funding for Angola in fiscal year 2010, but only 4 percent for
Montenegro. These countries had comparable funding levels in 2010.
IMET Offers Human Rights Training but Does not Emphasize It in Many
Countries of Concern:
IMET students can receive human rights training through several venues,
including human-rights focused courses and field visits to democratic
institutions. However, only about a quarter of IMET country training
plans we reviewed for participant countries with poor records of
political and civil freedoms cited human rights as a U.S. program
objective.
IMET Provides Some Human Rights Training through Classroom and Field
Courses:
Some IMET students attend E-IMET-certified courses with an explicit
focus on human rights and related concepts.[Footnote 13] As of February
2010, 141 E-IMET certified courses were offered. Seven focused on human
rights, rule of law, or international military law. These included
courses on establishing civil-military relations and international law
of military operations. A total of 79 IMET students took human rights
courses in fiscal year 2010 at the Defense Institute of International
Legal Studies, which, along with the Naval Postgraduate School,
provides E-IMET courses on human rights. The Defense Institute of
International Legal Studies offers courses including the law of armed
conflict and human rights, and rule of law, and an additional 798 IMET
students took mobile training related to human rights in fiscal year
2010. All IMET students in the master's degree program at the Naval
Postgraduate School are required to take a seminar on American life and
institutions that includes one class on human rights. While a Naval
Postgraduate School official was unable to provide an exact number, he
said approximately a quarter of the 99 students who took the seminar in
2010 were IMET students.
In addition, the Field Studies Program increases awareness of human
rights and American values through visits to institutions that promote
democratic concepts such as media outlets and universities. According
to DOD guidance,[Footnote 14] the Field Studies Program should include
discussion with the students about topics such as the U.S. government
structure, judicial system, and political party system, and the way in
which all of these elements reflect the U.S. commitment to the basic
principles of internationally recognized human rights. As part of the
Field Studies Program, IMET students have visited state and local
government offices, a local police department, academic institutions,
major defense contractors, the United Nations, and the Statue of
Liberty.
In addition, students may receive PME-related human rights training. We
interviewed officials and reviewed curricula from several military
schools that provide PME training. These officials told us that human
rights content was integrated broadly into the DOD PME curriculum, and
not as a standalone course. One exception among schools that offer PME
training is the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
The institute provides human rights training as part of its democracy
and human rights curriculum through five legislatively mandated
subjects, including human rights, rule of law, and civilian control of
the military. A total of 464 IMET students received human rights
training at the institute in fiscal year 2010.
Country Training Plans Cited Human Rights to a Limited Extent:
We reviewed training plans for the 29 IMET participant nations ranked
as "not free" by an independent nongovernmental organization called
Freedom House, and found that only 8 of those plans cited human rights
as a program objective (see table 1).[Footnote 15] For example, the
training plan for Turkmenistan--which Freedom House included among the
nine countries that received the lowest possible rating for both
political freedom and civil liberties--did not cite human rights among
program objectives that included building naval force capacity,
exposing military leaders to U.S. society, and increasing English
language capability. The training plan for Chad highlighted
counterterrorism and the role of the military in a democracy. It did
not cite human rights, though State has documented various human rights
abuses in the country, including extrajudicial killings and security
force impunity. Even when including related terms, such as rule of law
and civil-military relations, only 11 out of the 29 plans we reviewed
could be reasonably interpreted as mentioning either human rights or
these other human rights-related concepts. For example, the country
training plan for Cameroon did not explicitly note the importance of
human rights but noted an objective to reinforce responsible civil-
military relationships.
Table 1: Types of Human Rights-Related Objectives Identified as
Priorities for 29 Countries Ranked as Not Free:
Country: Africa: Angola;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Cameroon;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Chad;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: Check.
Country: Africa: Djibouti;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Ethiopia;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Gabon;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Mauritania;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Republic of the Congo;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Rwanda;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Sudan;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Africa: Swaziland;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: East Asia and the Pacific: Cambodia;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: East Asia and the Pacific: Laos;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: East Asia and the Pacific: Vietnam;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Europe and Eurasia: Azerbaijan;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Near East[A]: Algeria;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Near East[A]: Bahrain;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Near East[A]: Egypt;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Near East[A]: Iraq;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Near East[A]: Jordan;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Near East[A]: Oman;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Near East[A]: Tunisia;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: Check;
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: Near East[A]: Yemen;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: South and Central Asia: Afghanistan;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: South and Central Asia: Kazakhstan;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: South and Central Asia: Tajikistan;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: South and Central Asia: Turkmenistan;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Country: South and Central Asia: Uzbekistan;
Human rights-related concepts: Human rights: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Rule of law: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Civil-military relations: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Military justice: [Empty];
Human rights-related concepts: Other: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of DOD and Freedom House data.
[A] Though Libya received IMET funds in fiscal year 2010, it was
excluded from this analysis because program money was withdrawn for
fiscal year 2011 and no current training plan exists. Based on
information from a State official, Saudi Arabia also was excluded from
this analysis because of the limited size and scope of its IMET
program.
[End of table]
We also interviewed 20 SCO training managers from IMET recipient
countries representing a mix of Freedom House rankings, including 12
countries ranked as "partly free" or "not free." Seven of the 12
training managers said human rights was not a consideration or priority
compared to other IMET objectives. One training manager said that
development of human rights was an objective of IMET but not for the
country program he managed, and another said the country program
emphasizes professional education and leadership. Only 3 of the 12
training managers interviewed acknowledged that human rights was a
country-level priority. One training manager said that human rights is
a key objective reinforced by U.S. officials at post in partnership
with the host nation. The remaining two training managers interviewed
did not provide clear answers on how human rights was prioritized.
Of the six DOD combatant commands with geographic responsibilities,
Southern Command--which has an area of responsibility that includes all
of Latin America except for Mexico--placed particular importance on
human rights with a policy dedicated to the issue. Although it does not
mention IMET specifically, Southern Command's human rights policy and
procedures include language reinforcing the need for promoting and
protecting human rights, and creating opportunities for better human
rights understanding.
Program Monitoring and Evaluation Weaknesses Limit Agencies' Efforts to
Assess IMET Effectiveness:
State and DOD's ability to assess IMET's effectiveness is limited by
several weaknesses in program monitoring and evaluation. First, State
and DOD have not established a performance plan that includes IMET
goals, objectives, and measures. Second, the agencies have limited
information on most IMET graduates resulting from weaknesses in DOD's
efforts to monitor and share information on these graduates after
training. Third, the agencies' evaluation efforts include few of the
elements commonly accepted as appropriate for measuring training
programs, and do not measure how IMET contributes to long-term program
outcomes. Finally, the agencies have not incorporated into their
evaluation efforts existing practices--including those of State and DOD
entities--and the input of IMET training managers.
State and DOD Have Not Established a Performance Plan for IMET:
State's May 2011 program evaluation policy requires its bureaus to
submit evaluation plans for all programs. However, State has not
established a performance plan for the IMET program. According to State
officials, IMET is referenced in State's fiscal year 2013 Bureau
Strategic Resource Plans (BSRP), which are to contain the evaluation
plans called for in this policy. Our review of 2013 State
BSRPs[Footnote 16] found little or no mention of IMET overall. However,
the Political-Military Affairs BSRP notes that the bureau is to begin
implementing a system for monitoring and evaluating security assistance
programs, including IMET, which will continue over the next several
years. According to State officials, this effort will begin in 2012,
and the plan notes it will include a full-time position to coordinate
the effort. Our prior work has noted the importance of developing
program evaluation plans that include clear goals and performance
measures, as well as intermediate measures to demonstrate performance
linkages for programs, such as IMET, where outcomes may not be apparent
for years. State officials stated the bureaus were developing more
detailed evaluation plans, but the bureaus had not completed these
plans during the course of our review.
DOD also lacks a performance plan for IMET. DSCA's Strategic Plan 2009-
2014, Campaign Support Plan 2010, and directorate-level performance
plan do not include IMET performance measures or plans for evaluating
the program.[Footnote 17] A DSCA official stated that IMET is grouped
together with all international education and training programs, and is
not specified for performance planning purposes. A DSCA official stated
IMET is not emphasized in current performance plans because it is an
efficient and effective program, and is less of a priority for
evaluation than newer programs. The Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy has established an office to conduct performance
monitoring and evaluation. However, according to officials from the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, this monitoring
and evaluation office will not address IMET.
DOD Monitors IMET Graduates to a Limited Extent:
DSCA Collects Career Information on Only a Few IMET Graduates:
DSCA's database of IMET trainees provides limited information on these
graduates' career progress or current position. We have identified
program monitoring as a key element of agency internal control and
quality control systems. Agencies should use such monitoring to assess
program quality and performance over time. A key facet of IMET program
monitoring is tracking basic career information to understand how IMET
graduates are being utilized following training. U.S. law requires the
Secretary of Defense to develop and maintain a database containing
records on each IMET trainee, including the type of instruction
received and whether it was successfully completed, and, to the extent
practicable, a record of the trainee's subsequent military or defense
ministry career and current position and location.[Footnote 18] DSCA
maintains IMET records in the Defense Security Assistance Management
System, which includes names of IMET trainees and other biographical
information.[Footnote 19] The database is updated with career
information on IMET graduates who have attained a prominent rank or
position within their host country military or civilian government--
referred to as a position of prominence.[Footnote 20] As of June 2011,
DSCA data indicate that only 1 percent of the nearly 88,000 IMET
trainees in the database--978 IMET graduates--had attained a position
of prominence. Career information--such as on the extent to which IMET
graduates are assigned to positions relevant to their training, remain
employed by the host nation following training, and progress within
their host nation military and civilian rank structure--is not
systematically updated for the remaining IMET graduates who have not
attained a position of prominence. A DSCA official acknowledged
weaknesses exist in current efforts to monitor IMET graduates.
IMET Monitoring Efforts Vary Across Posts, but Could Provide Valuable
Information:
Survey responses from DOD training managers indicate that posts monitor
IMET graduates to varying degrees.[Footnote 21] For example, 35 of 59
training managers who responded to our survey indicated they maintain
some career information on all or most IMET graduates, while 23 of 59
who responded said they do so for some, a few, or no graduates.
Furthermore, though DOD guidance states SCOs must obtain appropriate
assurances that IMET trainees are employed in the skill for which
trained for a period of time to warrant the expense to the United
States, 15 of 58 training managers who responded to our survey
indicated they did not typically track whether IMET graduates are
assigned to a position relevant to their IMET training.
The survey responses also indicate in many cases training managers
obtain valuable monitoring information that State and DOD are not fully
utilizing. For example, of those 35 training managers who indicated
that they maintain some career information on all or most IMET
graduates, 24 said they do so for 3 years or longer following training,
and 17 of these 24 said they do for 6 years or longer. However, despite
its potential value as part of a broader IMET evaluation effort,
training managers do not systematically share this information with
State and DOD, and are only required to share information on the small
percentage of IMET graduates who have attained a position of
prominence.
In addition to our survey, we also interviewed 20 training managers,
and found monitoring weaknesses. In particular, 18 of the 20 training
managers we interviewed monitored a limited number of IMET graduates.
Six of these managers said they sought career information on graduates
only when circumstances warranted, while a few stated that they were
unable to conduct any monitoring of graduates. One training manager
said that after a student returns from training, "I am done with him,"
while another said, "we lose track of graduates as soon as they return"
to their home country following training.
Our survey and interview results indicate that training managers
generally place greater monitoring focus on graduates with more
critical and higher level skills, in accordance with DOD guidance. For
example, 35 of the 49 training managers who responded to our survey
said that they collected and updated at least some career information
for all or most IMET PME graduates. Further, 14 of the 20 training
managers we interviewed said that they generally focused monitoring on
graduates who attained a position of prominence or graduates of PME
training. While this emphasis on higher-level graduates is consistent
with DOD guidance, these graduates represent a limited portion of IMET
trainees--in fiscal year 2010, PME students represented nearly 27
percent of all IMET participants.
Training Managers Identified Challenges to Monitoring IMET Graduates
but Provided Suggestions for Improvement:
Training managers we surveyed and interviewed identified several
challenges to their ability to monitor IMET graduates. As figure 5
shows, survey respondents--ranging from nearly one half to more than
three-quarters of the respondents--indicated that their ability to
collect and update career information on IMET graduates was somewhat or
greatly hindered by resource limitations relating to personnel and
time, issues with host country willingness and ability to provide
information on graduates, and unclear guidance on the extent to which
training managers should monitor IMET graduates.
Figure 5: Survey Responses on Challenges to Monitoring IMET Graduates:
[Refer to PDF for image: bar graph]
Resources limitations (personnel and time);
Greatly limit: 19;
Somewhat limit: 28;
Does not limit or not applicable: 13.
Issues with host country cooperation and willingness to
provide information;
Greatly limit: 13;
Somewhat limit: 16;
Does not limit or not applicable: 30.
Limitations with host country information systems;
Greatly limit: 15;
Somewhat limit: 23;
Does not limit or not applicable: 20.
Unclear monitoring guidance;
Greatly limit: 5;
Somewhat limit: 22;
Does not limit or not applicable: 33.
Source: GAO survey of training managers.
Note: We do not include missing responses in this figure.
[End of figure]
These challenges were also highlighted during our interviews with 20
training managers. In particular, more than half of the 20 managers
said they did not have enough time or personnel to monitor IMET
graduates. In addition, more than half of the training managers stated
that the host nation did not fully cooperate in providing information
on IMET graduates. Several training managers said that requesting
information from the host nation on IMET graduates would likely be
perceived as a U.S. intelligence gathering effort or an effort to
unduly influence trainees. Finally, a few training managers explained
that they were unable to obtain information on IMET graduates in a
timely manner due to various factors, including slow response times
from host nation officials and inefficient host nation information
management systems.
Training managers also offered suggestions for improving IMET
monitoring, such as:
* clarify guidance to specify what information training managers should
collect on IMET graduates, the desired outcomes, and best practices for
doing so;
* improve data systems so training managers and IMET graduates can
enter updated career information more easily;
* require recipient nations to provide updated information on IMET
graduates as a precondition of IMET assistance; and:
* increase information sharing between military schools and SCOs
regarding IMET graduates.
Multiple training managers also noted that developing strong working
relationships with host nation counterparts and meeting with IMET
graduates before and after training were important in helping their
current efforts to monitor IMET graduates. For example, one training
manager explained that her host nation counterparts provided timely
information about the career changes of IMET graduates, and also hosted
an annual reception for past years' IMET graduates to reinforce
relationships established by the program.
State and DOD Evaluation Efforts Provide Limited Information on Program
Effectiveness:
State and DOD's current evaluation efforts include some of the elements
for measuring progress of training programs, but do not objectively
measure how IMET contributes to long-term, desired program outcomes. We
have developed guidance to evaluate how training efforts contribute to
the accomplishment of program goals and objectives.[Footnote 22] This
guidance notes that one commonly accepted approach to evaluating the
impact of training over time consists of five levels of evaluation:
reaction (level I), learning (level II), behavior (level III), results
(level IV), and return on investment (level V) (see fig.6).
Figure 6: Extent to Which State and DOD Collect Performance Data at
Evaluation Levels:
[Refer PDF for image: illustration]
Pyramid:
Level I: reaction;
How does the learner feel about the training?
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data collected to some extent.
Level II: learning;
What facts or knowledge did the learner gain?
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data collected to some extent.
Level III: behaviors;
What skills did the learner develop? What new information is the
learner using on the job?
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data not collected.
Level IV: results or effectiveness;
Did the learner apply the new skills to the
necessary tasks in the organization? If so, what results were achieved?
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data not collected.
Level V: return on investment;
How does the monetary value of results of the
program compare with the related costs?
Extent to Which State and DOD Collect PerformanceData at Various Evaluation
Levels: Data not collected.
Source: GAO analysis of State and DOD data, and GAO (presentation).
Note: Our presentation is based on information from Donald L.
Kirkpatrick, Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels (San
Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1998), and Jack J.
Phillips, ed., Implementing Evaluation Systems and Processes
(Alexandria, Va., American Society for Training and Development, 1998.)
[End of figure]
The lower levels of evaluation--levels I and II--focus on more
immediate training outputs, such as whether participants liked the
training or how much they learned. The higher levels--levels III, IV,
and V--measure longer-term program results by assessing how training is
applied on the job and contributes to the accomplishment of program
goals and objectives. As figure 6 illustrates, current State and DOD
IMET evaluation efforts only partially address these five levels of
evaluation. We recognize conducting higher levels of evaluation can be
challenging and resource intensive. Agencies can consider feasibility,
cost-effectiveness, and other factors when determining the appropriate
extent to which to use the various evaluation levels to assess
programs.
State and DOD have three main sources of IMET performance information:
a survey of some IMET graduates, a report on IMET graduates who have
attained prominent ranks or positions, and country-level narrative
performance information. While the survey collects some level I and
level II performance evaluation information, none of these three
sources captures higher-level performance information for the program
worldwide, such as the extent to which IMET graduates apply program
skills or knowledge on the job (level III) or contribute to
organizational changes or results through the application of these
skills or knowledge (level IV). For example:
* State and DOD's survey of IMET students[Footnote 23] collects some
information on student's reaction to and knowledge gained from IMET
training, but little insight on how IMET affects trainees' future
behavior or program results. The survey includes questions that gauge
students' reaction to the training, such as whether it met expectations
or was valuable. It also has questions on the extent to which students
think they gained understanding of certain issues. However, the survey
is administered only once, immediately after training, and is not
accompanied by a pretest to compare knowledge levels before and after
training. The survey also does not include a follow-up component to
assess how students--a year later for instance--apply skills learned
through IMET training on the job.
* DSCA's annual report of IMET graduates who have attained "positions
of prominence" reflects a small fraction of the overall IMET graduate
population and does not assess graduates' job performance relative to
program objectives. This report identifies the placement of foreign
officials with a U.S. military training background. For example, two
heads of state and two deputy heads of state are among the IMET
graduates who attained a position of prominence. However, as noted
earlier, graduates who have attained a position of prominence represent
only 1 percent of all IMET trainees in DSCA's database. Therefore, this
report does not address IMET's impact on the overall student
population. Further, though the report provides information on IMET
graduates' title and training background, it does not include
evaluative information, such as the extent to which these graduates
apply IMET learning on the job.
* DOD collects narrative performance information in annual country
training plans, but does not systematically analyze this information.
Each year SCOs must include in their annual training plans--known as
Combined Education and Training Program Plans--narrative performance
information on country-level successes or failures related to the use
of training efforts. For example, plans include narrative information
on how effectively the host country uses the skills and training of
returning graduates and how training has enhanced the professionalism
or capabilities of the host nation. State and DOD could potentially
analyze some of the narrative information to inform assessments of
program impact, such as the extent to which graduates are applying IMET
skills to shape organizational changes or results.
Other State and DOD Evaluation Practices Could be Applied to IMET:
State's Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs engages youth,
students, educators, artists, athletes, and rising leaders in many
fields in the United States and more than 160 countries through
academic, cultural, sports, and professional exchanges. The bureau
conducts several types of evaluation efforts that could be applied to
IMET, including surveying program participants prior to, immediately
after, and a year after programs. According to the bureau, these
surveys enable the bureau to collect baseline and end-of-program data,
as well as follow-up information on how program participants apply
their program experience to work behaviors and organizational
processes. The bureau's Chief of Evaluation suggested that such a multi-
phase survey approach could have applicability for evaluating IMET.
In addition, several of DOD's regional centers for security studies
have begun efforts to evaluate long-term program outcomes.[Footnote 24]
In particular, the Africa Center for Strategic Studies and the Center
for Hemispheric Defense Studies have developed performance indicators
intended to measure program impact over time. Using these indicators,
the centers can attempt to track the extent to which program alumni are
engaging in certain activities that align with key program objectives.
Examples of specific indicators the centers have developed include the
number of program alumni who have contributed to regional center
publications or host nation strategy documents, lectured on U.S. policy
or security issues, or developed a new law or policy change within
their host nation government.
In addition, SCO training managers suggested several performance
indicators and activities that State and DOD could adopt to strengthen
IMET evaluation efforts. These suggestions include:
* surveying U.S. military officials to determine if IMET has improved
access and working relationships with the host nation, or proficiency
in certain areas;
* assessing the career progression of IMET graduates compared to non-
IMET graduates within specific countries;
* analyzing the proportion of positions of prominence held by IMET
graduates, compared to non-IMET graduates;
* reviewing the extent to which IMET graduates are serving in positions
that utilize training;
* conducting pre-and post-IMET tests to measure changes in attitudes
before and after training; and:
* assessing select countries' participation in joint operations.
The training managers we interviewed did not indicate they had tried to
employ any of these suggestions to evaluate IMET.
Conclusions:
Many IMET recipient countries could benefit from increased exposure to
human rights standards and training, with nearly two-thirds of IMET
recipients in fiscal year 2010 identified as "not free" or "partly
free" by Freedom House. Though building respect for human rights is a
program objective, IMET training managers and country training plans
indicate a limited emphasis on human rights for those countries with
known human rights and related concerns. For example, for those 29 IMET
recipient countries ranked "not free," only 11 training plans
identified human rights or human rights-related concepts as a program
objective. State and DOD could take steps to better target the
provision of human rights training among such IMET recipient countries
of concern.
Furthermore, State and DOD continue to have weaknesses in monitoring
IMET graduates and assessing IMET program effectiveness.[Footnote 25]
Their current evaluation efforts do not measure how IMET training
contributes to long-term program outcomes--such as the extent to which
IMET graduates apply training skills or knowledge on the job, or
contribute to organizational changes or results through the use of
these skills. Moreover, current efforts to monitor the use and careers
of IMET graduates address only a limited number of trainees, while the
nature and extent of these efforts can vary across posts depending on
host-country cooperation, available resources, and other factors. While
we acknowledge it can be challenging to evaluate long-term training
programs, State and DOD should take initial steps toward a long-term
commitment to strengthen IMET evaluation efforts. To do so, the
agencies could follow the established evaluation framework outlined in
this report, which offers a roadmap for undertaking such efforts; adopt
applicable evaluation practices used by other agencies; and draw on the
institutional knowledge of their own staff to determine best approaches
for improving monitoring and evaluation. To address concerns about
resources, the agencies may consider monitoring graduates and
evaluating program effectiveness for selected training types or in
selected countries. Until the agencies develop a more comprehensive
IMET program evaluation and monitoring system, they will be unable to
objectively demonstrate the program's effectiveness in building
professionalism and respect for human rights within foreign military
forces.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretaries of State and Defense take several
steps to emphasize human rights training and improve evaluations for
the IMET program.
Specifically, we recommend that the Secretaries of State and Defense
take steps to ensure that human rights training is identified as a
priority for those IMET recipient countries with known records of human
rights concerns. These steps may include highlighting human rights and
related concepts in country training plans.
We also recommend that they take initial steps toward developing a
system for evaluating the effectiveness of the IMET program. These
steps should build on current efforts toward a more systematic
collection of performance information--at multiple points in time, over
several years, and for a set of objective performance measures--and
should include:
* adopting existing evaluation practices used by other State and DOD
agencies, such as periodically surveying program participants to assess
changes in knowledge or attitudes, and:
* soliciting ideas from training managers and applying their
suggestions on improving program monitoring practices and evaluations,
including for the development of objective performance measures that
could assess program impact over time.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to State and DOD for their review
and comment. State provided written comments, which are reprinted in
appendix III. State generally concurred with our recommendations and
said it would work with DOD to address them. In particular, State
stated it will work with DOD to ensure human rights training is
identified as a priority in IMET recipient countries with known human
rights concerns. State also stated it will work with DOD to determine
steps that could be feasibly taken in order to better evaluate the
effectiveness of the IMET program over time, starting with discussions
with other State and DOD offices using relevant evaluation practices,
but also by soliciting ideas from training managers.
DOD provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV. DOD
concurred with both of our recommendations. DOD stated it will work
with State to inform training managers in those countries that State
believes should have human rights specifically listed as an important
objective in the country's annual training plan. DOD stated the
inclusion of human rights objectives in country training plans will
ensure a better policy focus on appropriate education and training
courses for human rights. DOD acknowledged that it and State have
weaknesses in their ability to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness
of the IMET program. DOD stated it will work with State to review
metrics and evaluation processes within other DOD and State agencies
and identify best practices to more systematically collect IMET
performance data. In addition, DOD stated it would solicit ideas from
the IMET training managers and consider their suggestions on improving
program monitoring practices and evaluation, to include identifying
performance measures that could assess the IMET program's impact over
time. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have included
throughout this report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and the Secretaries of State and Defense. This report will
also be available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Key contributors to
this report are listed in appendix IV. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report.
Signed by:
Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.:
Director International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To review changes in the International Military Education and Training
(IMET) program from fiscal years 2000 to 2010, we analyzed Department
of State and Defense (DOD) documents and data systems related to IMET
funding allocations by country and region and number of students
trained by training type. These included Department of State's (State)
Congressional Budget Justifications, the annual Congressional Report on
Military International Training, and the Defense Security Cooperation
Agency's (DSCA) Defense Security Assistance Management System. We used
fiscal year 2000 as our starting point because, according to DSCA,
their data were unreliable prior to that year. We discussed and
clarified the reliability of data included in the system with DSCA
officials responsible for managing its data and we determined these
data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review.
To review the provision and prioritization of human rights training for
IMET students, we obtained curriculum documents, course descriptions,
and student enrollment information from select DOD training facilities.
In addition, we analyzed Combined Education and Training Program Plans,
which outline training priorities and objectives, for IMET recipient
nations ranked as "not free" by Freedom House in its report titled
Freedom in the World 2011. We used the Freedom House index as a proxy
for human rights rankings. State has used Freedom House rankings as an
indicator to measure progress toward the agency's strategic goal:
"Governing Justly and Democratically." This goal includes advancing
respect for human rights. We assessed the emphasis on human rights in
these training plans using human rights related terminology from the
Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management's handbook, The
Management of Security Assistance. Two analysts separately reviewed the
training plans for human rights and related terminology, and then met
and reconciled their results.
To review the extent to which State and DOD have monitored and
evaluated the IMET program, we reviewed U.S. laws related to the IMET
program. We also reviewed our prior reports addressing the evaluation
of training programs, State and DOD-funded evaluations of IMET, and
other IMET studies. We met with State and DOD staff to discuss their
performance planning, monitoring, and evaluation efforts. These staff
included officials from multiple State bureaus and DOD entities,
including the DSCA; geographic combatant commands; and several military
departments and U.S. military schools. To understand the extent to
which State and DOD had developed performance plans for IMET, we
reviewed State's program evaluation policy; State's Bureau Strategic
Resource Plans for the African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
Europe and Eurasian Affairs, South and Central Asian Affairs, and
Political-Military Affairs bureaus; and DSCA's Strategic Plan 2009-2014
and Campaign Support Plan 2010. To understand the extent to which DOD
monitors IMET graduates, we met with DSCA staff to discuss and review
their centralized student data system. To review the extent to which
State and DOD evaluate the effectiveness of the IMET program, we
determined the primary methods by which the agencies provide IMET
performance information. We then compared these existing IMET
evaluation efforts against preexisting models for evaluating training
programs, which we have identified as commonly accepted. Finally, we
met with staff from State's Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs
and staff from several DOD regional centers to assess the extent to
which their program evaluation approaches could have applicability for
IMET.
In addition, to obtain information on the provision and prioritization
of human rights training for IMET students and the extent to which
State and DOD monitor IMET graduates and evaluate program
effectiveness, we conducted structured interviews with Security
Cooperation Office (SCO) training managers in 20 IMET countries. We
selected these 20 countries using a methodology that prioritized those
countries with higher funding levels, and included a range of host
country conditions as ranked by Freedom House's Freedom in the World
Index 2010. We conducted interviews both in person, during our
attendance at the Security Cooperation Education and Training Working
Group conferences for the U.S. European Command and the U.S. Africa
Command, as well as by phone. Our structured interview included
questions on managers' specific monitoring activities, the types and
levels of IMET graduates they monitor, their IMET evaluation
activities, and their offices' human rights policies and activities. We
developed the structured interview over multiple iterations in which we
assessed questions methodologically for coherence, completeness, and
balance, and reviewed our questions with two training managers not
included in our selection of 20 for structured interviews and refined
our questions based on their input.
To analyze the open-ended responses to our structured interview
questions, we first developed a set of summary statements to be used
for reporting purposes. These summary statements were based on an
inductive exercise involving an in-depth reading and comparison of
responses. Second, we tested these statements on an initial set of
three interviews. This test involved two analysts separately coding the
summary statements for each of the three interviews. Most statements
were coded in one of four ways: (1) positive response--the interview
data corresponded to the statement; (2) negative response--the
interview data contradicted the statement; (3) mixed response--the
interview data partially corresponded to the statement; and (4)
nonresponse--no reference to the statement was contained in the
interview data. The two analysts met and reconciled their responses;
this effort also resulted in modifications to the summary statements.
Third, a primary analyst used the revised statements to separately code
each of the remaining 17 interviews and then a secondary analyst
reviewed that coding; any differences in coding were reconciled between
the two analysts. Final tallies of the analysis were obtained by
counting, for each statement, the number of positive, negative, and
nonresponses.
To obtain further information on how and to what degree SCOs monitor
IMET training graduates we conducted a short e-mail survey of the lead
training manager in 123 IMET countries in July and August 2011,
receiving 70 responses. Due to our response rate of 57 percent, in this
report we provide counts of the numbers of officers responding to
particular survey questions and do not generalize the survey results to
the entire population of officers as we do not know how the other 43
percent of officers would have responded to our questions. In addition,
the actual number of respondents to particular questions is typically
less than 70, due to item nonresponse or do not know responses. We
pretested our survey with IMET training officers in three countries. In
collecting and analyzing the survey data, we took steps to minimize
errors that might occur during these stages. To assess the likelihood
of bias resulting from differences in respondents and non-respondents,
we analyzed the variation in the percentages of respondents and non-
respondents by region and funding level, which are two key attributes
of SCOs. We found that there was not a large variation between the
percentages of non-respondents and respondents by these two variables,
supporting our conclusion regarding the usability of the data.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through October 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Freedom House Rankings for Fiscal Year 2010 IMET Recipient
Countries:
This appendix provides information on fiscal year 2010 IMET funding and
Freedom House rankings for the 125 IMET recipient countries. As shown
in table 2, 46 were ranked by Freedom House as "free," 48 as "partly
free," and 31 as "not free." Freedom House defines these terms as
follows:
* A "free" country is one where there is open political competition, a
climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic
life, and independent media.
* A "partly free" country is one where there is limited respect for
political rights and civil liberties. "Partly free" states frequently
suffer from an environment of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic and
religious strife, and a political landscape in which a single party
enjoys dominance despite a certain degree of pluralism.
* A "not free" country is one where basic political rights are absent,
and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied.
Table 2: IMET Recipient Countries by Fiscal Year 2010 Funding Level and
2011 Freedom House Ranking:
Region or country: Africa;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty];
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $15,130,000.
Region or country: Angola;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 373,000.
Region or country: Benin;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 316,000.
Region or country: Botswana;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 688,000.
Region or country: Burkina Faso;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 261,000.
Region or country: Burundi;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 345,000.
Region or country: Cameroon;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 267,000.
Region or country: Cape Verde;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 124,000.
Region or country: Central African Republic;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 60,000.
Region or country: Chad;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 375,000.
Region or country: Comoros;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 111,000.
Region or country: Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 500,000.
Region or country: Djibouti;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 379,000.
Region or country: Ethiopia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 336,000.
Region or country: Gabon;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 200,000.
Region or country: Ghana;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 794,000.
Region or country: Kenya;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 959,000.
Region or country: Lesotho;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $177,000.
Region or country: Liberia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 488,000.
Region or country: Malawi;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 300,000.
Region or country: Mali;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 411,000.
Region or country: Mauritania;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 147,000.
Region or country: Mauritius;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 150,000.
Region or country: Mozambique;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 385,000.
Region or country: Namibia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 140,000.
Region or country: Nigeria;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,016,000.
Region or country: Republic of the Congo;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 132,000.
Region or country: Rwanda;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 512,000.
Region or country: Sao Tome and Principe;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 171,000.
Region or country: Senegal;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 991,000.
Region or country: Seychelles;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 118,000.
Region or country: Sierra Leone;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 403,000.
Region or country: South Africa;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 845,000.
Region or country: Sudan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 793,000.
Region or country: Swaziland;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 167,000.
Region or country: Tanzania;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 397,000.
Region or country: The Gambia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 118,000.
Region or country: Togo;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 224,000.
Region or country: Uganda;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 591,000.
Region or country: Zambia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 366,000.
Region or country: East Asia and Pacific;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty];
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 8,878,000.
Region or country: Cambodia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 99,000.
Region or country: East Asia and Pacific Regional;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: n/a;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 739,000.
Region or country: Indonesia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,819,000.
Region or country: Laos;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 71,000.
Region or country: Malaysia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 950,000.
Region or country: Marshall Islands;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 34,000.
Region or country: Mongolia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,006,000.
Region or country: Philippines;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,850,000.
Region or country: Samoa;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 36,000.
Region or country: Thailand;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,571,000.
Region or country: Timor-Leste;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 303,000.
Region or country: Vietnam;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 400,000.
Region or country: Europe and Eurasia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty];
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $30,532,000.
Region or country: Albania;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 962,000.
Region or country: Armenia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 449,000.
Region or country: Azerbaijan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 886,000.
Region or country: Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 990,000.
Region or country: Bulgaria;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,719,000.
Region or country: Croatia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 864,000.
Region or country: Czech Republic;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,892,000.
Region or country: Estonia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,156,000.
Region or country: Georgia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,806,000.
Region or country: Greece;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 105,000.
Region or country: Hungary;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,060,000.
Region or country: Kosovo;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 700,000.
Region or country: Latvia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,100,000.
Region or country: Lithuania;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,100,000.
Region or country: Macedonia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 955,000.
Region or country: Malta;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 149,000.
Region or country: Moldova;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 731,000.
Region or country: Montenegro;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 398,000.
Region or country: Poland;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 2,198,000.
Region or country: Portugal;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 95,000.
Region or country: Romania;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,760,000.
Region or country: Serbia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 903,000.
Region or country: Slovakia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 964,000.
Region or country: Slovenia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 694,000.
Region or country: Turkey;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 4,992,000.
Region or country: Ukraine;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,904,000.
Region or country: Near East;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: ;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 18,520,000.
Region or country: Algeria;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 950,000.
Region or country: Bahrain;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 671,000.
Region or country: Egypt;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,900,000.
Region or country: Iraq;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,989,000.
Region or country: Jordan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 3,772,000.
Region or country: Lebanon;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 2,500,000.
Region or country: Libya;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 319,000.
Region or country: Morocco;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,789,000.
Region or country: Oman;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $1,525,000.
Region or country: Saudi Arabia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 7,000.
Region or country: Tunisia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,945,000.
Region or country: Yemen;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,153,000.
Region or country: South and Central Asia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty];
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 13,404,000.
Region or country: Afghanistan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,756,000.
Region or country: Bangladesh;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,009,000.
Region or country: India;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,269,000.
Region or country: Kazakhstan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 779,000.
Region or country: Kyrgyz Republic;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 843,000.
Region or country: Maldives;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 203,000.
Region or country: Nepal;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 896,000.
Region or country: Pakistan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 5,000,000.
Region or country: Sri Lanka;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 731,000.
Region or country: Tajikistan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 456,000.
Region or country: Turkmenistan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 262,000.
Region or country: Uzbekistan;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Not free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 200,000.
Region or country: Western Hemisphere;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: ;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 16,315,000.
Region or country: Argentina;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 900,000.
Region or country: Bahamas;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 200,000.
Region or country: Belize;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 258,000.
Region or country: Bolivia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 366,000.
Region or country: Brazil;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 610,000.
Region or country: Chile;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 899,000.
Region or country: Colombia;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,694,000.
Region or country: Costa Rica;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 366,000.
Region or country: Dominican Republic;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 844,000.
Region or country: Eastern Caribbean and Barbados;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $783,000.
Region or country: Ecuador;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 375,000.
Region or country: El Salvador;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 1,708,000.
Region or country: Guatemala;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 797,000.
Region or country: Guyana;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 300,000.
Region or country: Haiti;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 92,000.
Region or country: Honduras;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 777,000.
Region or country: Jamaica;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 752,000.
Region or country: Mexico;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 989,000.
Region or country: Nicaragua;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $894,000.
Region or country: Panama;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 750,000.
Region or country: Paraguay;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Partly free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 394,000.
Region or country: Peru;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 627,000.
Region or country: Suriname;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 250,000.
Region or country: Trinidad and Tobago;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 167,000.
Region or country: Uruguay;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: Free;
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 523,000.
Region or country: Administrative costs;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty];
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: 5,221,000.
Region or country: Total;
Freedom House 2011 ranking: [Empty];
Fiscal year 2010 allocations: $108,000,000.
Sources: GAO analysis of State funding data and Freedom House, Freedom
in the World 2011.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, D.C.:
October 18, 2001:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report,
"International Military Education And Training: Agencies Should
Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve Evaluations," GAO Job Code
320776. The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report. If
you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Brendan
Garvin, Program Analyst, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at (202)
647-7769.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James L. Millette:
cc: GAO -Charles M. Johnson, Jr.:
PM -Andrew J. Shapiro:
State/OIG -Evelyn Klemstine:
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report International Military
Education And Training: Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training
and Improve Evaluations (GAO-12-123, GAO Code 320776):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
report, as well as Congress' continued interest in the International
Military Education and Training (IMET) Program and GAO efforts to
review the program to ensure that it is meeting congressional intent.
As the GAO identifies, the IMET program serves several important goals
including encouraging effective and mutually beneficial relations and
increased understanding between the United States and foreign countries
in furtherance of the goals of international peace and security;
improving the ability of participating foreign countries to utilize
their resources, including defense articles and defense services
obtained from the United States with maximum effectiveness, thereby
contributing to greater self-reliance; and increasing the awareness of
foreign nationals participating in such activities of basic issues
involving internationally recognized human rights.
The Department of State is committed to ensuring that the program
continues to meet all of these important goals.
In terms of instruction in human rights, the Department of State must
balance between E-IMET type courses (which focus more exclusively on
human rights, civil-military relations, and military justice) and
defense resource management and professional military education (PME)
courses (which generally include elements of these topics along with
the standard education that would be received by any U.S. attendee at a
given military institution). This calculation must take into account
that in PME courses, which are often the same courses U.S. personnel
are taking, foreign students are more likely to be exposed to a diverse
group of U.S. attendees than they would be in a course focused
specifically on E-IMET topics. Courses focused on E-IMET topics and PME
courses both play a critical role in inculcating our most important
values over the long run. There may be cases where the Department of
State would choose to limit a country to E-IMET courses because of
policy concerns.
It is for this reason that much of the funding in the IMET program is
focused on PME, which, in addition to classroom instruction in E-IMET
topics, also includes interactions with organizations in the United
States like our local governments, educational institutions, and civic
organizations. The Department of State must also ensure that the IMET
program for a given country is appropriately scoped so that the courses
in a given program will garner high quality candidates from foreign
nations and our investment in these students will not be squandered.
Highly sought-after PME courses are key in ensuring that we can attract
qualified individuals destined for future leadership positions and are
a critical piece of imparting our values.
The Department of State appreciates the GAO's recommendations for
improving the IMET program and generally concurs with the
recommendations suggested.
We will work with the Department of Defense to ensure that human rights
training is identified as a priority in IMET recipient countries with
known human rights concerns. This training will include courses focused
primarily on E-IMET topics, as well as longer-term PME courses that
include instruction on E-IMET topics.
We will also work with the Department of Defense to determine steps
that could be feasibly taken in order to better evaluate the
effectiveness of the IMET program over time, starting with discussions
with other of State and Department of Defense offices currently using
relevant evaluation practices, but also by soliciting ideas from
training managers. Follow-on steps taken in this areas will depend on a
cost/benefit analysis of the options and will have to be scoped based
on the availability of resources to implement new procedures and
evaluation measures.
The Department of State is committed to working with the Department of
Defense and Congress to ensure that the IMET program remains strong,
and continues to build long-term relationships and impart American
values, endeavors sometimes difficult to quantify, but critical to
undertake.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Defense Security Cooperation Agency:
201 12th Street South, Ste 203:
Arlington, Va 22202-5408:
October 20, 2011:
Mr. Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.:
Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. Government
Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Johnson, Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide
comments on the GAO Draft Report, GA0-12-123, "International Military
Education And Training: Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training
and Improve Evaluations," dated September 26, 2011 (GAO Code 320776)."
The Department of Defense (DoD) response is attached.
I trust your assessment and recommendations will help DoD and DoS work
closely with the COCOMs to ensure that human rights training is
identified as a priority for those IMET recipient countries with known
records of human rights concerns and also helps improve the assessment
processes and evaluation standards for the IMET program.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jeanne L. Farmer:
Principal Director for Programs:
Attachments:
As stated:
GAO Draft Report Dated September 26, 2011 Gao-12-123 (Gao Code 320776):
"International Military Education And Training: Agencies Should
Emphasize Human Rights Training And Improve Evaluations":
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense take
steps to ensure that human rights training is identified as a priority
for those International Military Education and Training recipient
countries with known records of human rights concerns. These steps may
include highlighting human rights and related concepts in country
training plans.
DoD Response: DoD concurs.
DoD agrees with DoS that there must be a balance between Expanded IMET
( E-IMET) type courses that would focus more exclusively on human
rights, and with professional military education courses which more
broadly include elements of those topics, along with the standard
education that would be received by any U.S military or DoD civilian
attendee at a DoD school as is noted on page 13 of the GAO report.
Currently many of the senior professional military education (PME)
courses at the war colleges and staff colleges provide at least a three
week orientation for the international students where the E-IMET
objectives of Human Rights, Civilian Control and the Role of the
Military in a Democracy, Military Justice and the Laws of War are
addressed. DoDs policies are also currently guided largely by an effort
to embed human rights training in the Field Studies Program, which is
available to all students attending courses in the US. The DoS survey,
given to a large majority of IMET student who attend DoD courses in the
U.S., reflects that students develop a greater understanding of human
rights at the end of their courses in the U.S. To build upon the
success of the current methods, DoD will work with DoS to inform the
U.S. country teams and the Combatant Command Training Managers of those
countries, where State believes that Human Rights should be
specifically listed as an important objective in the country's Combined
Education and Training Program Plan (CETPP). The inclusion of human
rights objectives in the country's CETPP will ensure a better policy
focus on appropriate education and training courses for human rights.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense take
the first steps toward developing a system for evaluating the
effectiveness of the International Military Education and Training
program. These steps should build on current efforts toward a more
systemic collection of performance information and should include:
adopting existing evaluation practices used by other agencies, such as
periodically surveying program participants to assess changes in
knowledge or attitudes; and soliciting ideas from training managers and
applying their suggestions on improving program monitoring practices
and evaluations, including for the development of objective performance
measures that could assess program impact over time.
DoD Response: DoD concurs. As the GAO identified in their report, DoS
and DOD do have weaknesses in their ability to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of the International Military Education and Training
(IMET) program. While DoD does have policies and a data collection
system in place, DSCA will work with DoS to look at metrics and
evaluation processes within other DoD and DoS agencies and identify
best practices to enhance the current system and enforce a more
systematic way to collect performance data for the IMET program. We
will also solicit ideas from the IMET program country training managers
and consider their suggestions on improving program monitoring
practices and evaluation, to include identifying performance measures
that could assess the IMET programs' impact over time.
The GAO also identified that a large majority of the IMET funding over
the last ten years has been allocated to Europe and the Eurasia region.
DSCA and DoS believe that the IMET program has been instrumentally
effective as a catalyst for a large majority of those European and
Eurasia countries to participate and supporting the U.S. in
Afghanistan, Iraq and in other Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Assistance
efforts all over the world. DoD is committed to ensuring that the IMET
program remains a key program in exposing international military
students from allied and partner nations to American culture and values.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Joe Christoff, Director; Judith
McCloskey, Assistant Director; Jennifer Bryant; Joe Carney; Debbie
Chung; David Dornisch; Tim Fairbanks; Farhanaz Kermalli; Mary Moutsos;
and Jena Sinkfield made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Congress established the IMET program in the International Security
Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Pub. L. No. 94-329,
June 30, 1976), which amended the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Pub.
L. No. 87-195, Sept. 4, 1961).
[2] GAO, Security Assistance: Observations on the International
Military Education and Training Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-90-215BR] (Washington, D.C.: June 14,
1990).
[3] See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 111-366 Accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-117, Dec. 16, 2009).
[4] Our response rate for this survey was 57 percent. As a result, we
do not generalize the survey results to the entire population of IMET
training managers.
[5] 22 USC ß 2347.
[6] These include the Army Training and Doctrine Command, Security
Assistance Training Field Activity; the Air Force Security Assistance
Training Squadron; the Naval Education and Training Security Assistance
Field Activity; the Marine Corps Security Cooperation Education and
Training Center; and the Coast Guard International Affairs and Foreign
Policy.
[7] According to DSCA, to be more cost-effective, DOD courses less than
5 weeks in total duration require DSCA and Combatant Command policy
waivers before being programmed, unless the country agrees to pay for
transportation. E-IMET and other short duration courses that are listed
in the Security Assistance Management Manual are exceptions to the
waiver requirement.
[8] According to the Defense Institute of Security Assistance
Management's The Management of Security Assistance, students are
selected to participate in the IMET program based on such
considerations as their leadership potential and likelihood of being
assigned, subsequent to IMET participation, to a job relevant to their
training for a period of time to warrant the training expense.
[9] This figure represents inflation-adjusted dollars. The nominal
value of fiscal year 2000 IMET appropriations was nearly $50 million.
This amount reflects a 0.38 percent across the board rescission for
fiscal year 2000.
[10] This figure represents inflation-adjusted dollars. The nominal
value would be nearly $18 million in 2010 dollars.
[11] These figures represent inflation-adjusted dollars. The nominal
values would be $22,000 and more than $1.7 million.
[12] The sum total of students we report as having attended PME,
English language, technical, management, postgraduate/degree, and
mobile training is greater than the total number of IMET students
trained in fiscal year 2010. According to DSCA, this is due to a
certain number of individual students who attended more than one
training type in fiscal year 2010, such as students who attended
English language training prior to attending another IMET-funded
course.
[13] A certain percentage of a country's IMET program must be selected
from a list of courses designated, by DSCA, as E-IMET-certified. These
courses are certified as such if DSCA determines that at least 51
percent of their content addresses E-IMET's stated objectives,
including responsible defense resource management, respect for and
understanding of the principle of civilian control of the military,
military justice systems, and procedures in accordance with
internationally recognized human rights.
[14] See DOD 5105.38-M, Security Assistance Management Manual, C10.11.
[15] Freedom House conducts an annual survey of the state of global
freedom as experienced by individuals. The survey is intended to
measure freedom--defined as the opportunity to act spontaneously in a
variety of fields outside the control of the government and other
centers of potential domination--according to two broad categories:
political rights and civil liberties. We utilized Freedom House
assessments on freedom as a proxy for human rights rankings. State has
used Freedom House rankings as an indicator to measure progress toward
the agency's strategic goal: "Governing Justly and Democratically."
This goal includes advancing respect for human rights. Of IMET
recipient countries for fiscal year 2010, Freedom House ranked 46
countries as "free," 48 as "partly free," and 31 as "not free" (see
app. II for a full listing of IMET participant countries and their
Freedom House rankings). See Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2011
(Jan. 13, 2011).
[16] We reviewed the plans for the following bureaus, which had been
identified by State officials as citing the IMET program: African
Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Europe and Eurasian Affairs,
South and Central Asian Affairs, and Political-Military Affairs.
According to State officials, the Near East Affairs and Western
Hemisphere Affairs bureau plans did not include IMET.
[17] IMET falls under DSCA's Building Partnership Capacity Division,
which, in addition to IMET, executes many of DOD's security cooperation
programs.
[18] Sec 22 USC 2347g.
[19] Database information includes first and last name, sex, service or
organization type, student code (e.g., officer, enlisted, or civilian),
organization or unit, place of birth city and country, and date of
birth.
[20] Each year SCOs are required to provide DSCA with a list of IMET
graduates who have attained a position of prominence. The definition of
position of prominence is to include general and flag rank officers and
lesser ranks such as chief of a military service, senior cabinet aide,
senior position on the joint or general staff, or commander of a
training installation. Civilian graduates achieving positions of
prominence are to include heads of state, cabinet and deputy cabinet
ministers, ambassadors, members of parliament, chiefs of leading
business enterprises, and other civilian leaders.
[21] We sent surveys to all 123 training managers worldwide and
received 70 completed surveys, for a response rate of 57 percent. In
this report we provide results from the officers responding to our
survey questions and do not generalize the survey results to the entire
population. The actual number of respondents for particular questions
was typically less than 70, due to nonresponses or "do not know"
responses.
[22] See, GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Strategic Management of
Training Important for Successful Transformation, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-888] (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 23,
2005), and Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C. March 2004).
There are four components to the training and development process:
planning and front-level analysis, design and development,
implementation, and evaluation. Our review of the IMET program focuses
on the final component, evaluation, which enables agencies to
demonstrate how training efforts contribute to improved performance and
results.
[23] The survey was developed in 2006, and in 2010 State and DOD
published results. See, Defense Institute of Security Assistance
Management and the Air Force Institute of Technology, State Department
and Defense Department Study on the Effectiveness of the IMET Program:
2007-2009 (Mar. 31, 2010). According to DSCA, officials from the
Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management will provide a
briefing on the results of surveys covering 2010-2011 in the fall of
2011.
[24] The regional centers provide resident courses, seminars, and
conferences to military and civilian personnel from allied and partner
nations. The centers include The George C. Marshall Center European
Center for Security Studies, the Asian Pacific Center for Security
Studies, the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, the Africa Center
for Strategic Studies, and the Near East South Asia Center for
Strategic Studies.
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-90-215BR].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAOís actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAOís Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: